The battle over
affirmative action has been fought on many grounds.
Scholars have argued passionately for the merits of
affirmative action from logic, political ideology,
empirical evidence of its effectiveness and appeals to
historical and social justice. Others have argued equally
passionately against affirmative action also on the basis
of logic, political ideology, empirical evidence of its
ineffectiveness for the apparent direct beneficiaries as
well as for the majority group and appeals to individual
merit and personal justice. The passion and the range of
the arguments reflect the complexity of the issue.

With respect to this intense debate, with smart and
committed people on both sides, I offer a simple point. A
colorblind approach to equal opportunity, as attractive
as it might seem in principle, is not sufficient to
ensure equal opportunity for traditionally
underrepre-sented groups in practice. Americans are not
colorblind, and subtle biases based on race and culture
still pervade our society and negatively impact members
of minority groups. My own research has mainly examined
the prejudice of Whites toward Blacks, and this will be
the focus of the information I present.

One current argument against affirmative action is
that, although it might have been useful in the past,
affirmative action is no longer needed. Indeed, it
is easy to obtain evidence to support this argument.
Psychologists, sociologists and political scientists have
long studied race relations in America. One thrust of
this work has been to understand the nature of Whites'
prejudice toward people of color (mainly toward Blacks)
and exploring how interracial contact situations can be
structured to reduce this prejudice.

"Over the past three decades,
nationwide surveys have documented significant
declines in expressions of prejudice, negative
stereotyping, and resistance to equality of
Whites toward Blacks."

Over the past three decades, nationwide surveys have
documented significant declines in expressions of
prejudice, negative stereotyping and resistance to
equality of Whites toward Blacks. Nevertheless,
substantial gaps in social, economic and physical
well-being between Blacks and Whites persist, and in some
cases are growing. Blacks continue to report greater
distrust in the system and in other people than do
Whites. For example, in one nationwide survey, only 16
percent of Blacks (compared to 44 percent of Whites) felt
that most people can be trusted. These data
challenge the assumption that race is no longer a
critical issue for our society.

There are also other
reasons  based on empirical evidence  to
question whether racism has really declined as much as
surveys indicate. Over the past 20 years I have been
conducting research with Samuel L. Gaertner that has
explored how racism has evolved into more subtle and
perhaps more insidious forms.

Aversive racism is one subtle form of bias that is
characteristic of many White Americans who possess strong
egalitarian values and who believe that they are not
prejudiced. But many also possess negative feelings and
beliefs that they are unaware of, or that they try to
dissociate from their images of themselves as
non-prejudiced. These negative feelings may be rooted in
common cognitive, motivational and sociocultural forces
that can affect most White Americans. These convictions
of fairness, justice and equality, along with the most
unavoidable development of racial biases, form the basis
of the ambivalence that aversive racists experience.

This ambivalence produces more subtle and indirect
manifestations of discrimination than more traditional,
overt forms of prejudice. Unlike the consistent pattern
of discrimination that might be expected from old
fashioned racists, whether aversive racists discriminate
against Blacks depends largely on the situation. Because
aversive racists consciously endorse egalitarian values,
they do not discriminate against Blacks in situations in
which discrimination would be obvious to others and
themselves. However, aversive racists do discriminate,
usually unintentionally, in subtle and rationalizable
ways, such as (1) when a negative response to a minority
group member can be justified on the basis of some factor
other than race, (2) when evaluative criteria are
ambiguous or (3) in terms of providing special favors or
support to ingroup members rather than derogating or
injuring outgroup members.

"Not only are the perpetuators
of bias often unaware of their motives, research
has demonstrated that the victims of
discrimination may also not recognize that they
have been personally discriminated against."

Contemporary racism is more likely to be manifested
by Whites as a failure to provide help to Blacks, without
any overt intention to cause harm. For example, in one
study of helping in an emergency, White bystanders were
as likely to help a Black victim as a White victim when
they were the only witness to an emergency and their
personal responsibility was clear. In a condition in
which the bystanders believed that there were other
witnesses to the emergency and they would justify not
helping on the belief that someone else would intervene,
Whites helped the Black victim half as often as they
helped the White victim. Bias was expressed but in a way
that could be justified on the basis of a
non-racerelated reason  the belief that
someone else would help.

The subtlety and
unintention-ality of contemporary forms of bias (such as
modern and symbolic racism, as well as aversive racism)
can contribute to racial distrust and tension. Because
aversive racists are unaware of their own prejudice and
discriminate only when a negative response toward a
minority group member can be justified on the basis of
some factor other than race, aversive racists tend
to underestimate the impact of race. They certainly
dismiss rac-ism as a motive for their behavior.
From the perspective of minority group members, the
inconsistent behavior of Whites and their denial of
personal bias can lead to questions about the sincerity
of these responses. Whereas Whites may be insensitive to
seeing racism anywhere, minority group members may be
sensitive to seeing it virtually anywhere.

Arguments against affirmative action frequently
propose that racism is no longer a problem and that, in
fact, reverse discrimination is now likely to
occur in which Blacks are favored over Whites who are
equally or even more qualified. Empirical research,
including some of our own, demonstrates this does happen.
However, this effect occurs primarily in situations in
which the real consequences are minimal. In situations
that have more immediate impact on Whites, discrimination
against Blacks is more likely to occur.

For example, aversive racists are more likely to
manifest subtle discrimination in response to direct or
symbolic threats to the status quo, such as by
showing less acceptance of and support for high status
relative to low status Blacks, and by resisting policies
designed to change the status quo that benefits
Whites when these policies can be opposed on nonracial
grounds. Although opposition to affirmative action may be
firmly rooted in personal and political ideology,
independent of race, some opposition may also be
motivated directly and indirectly by racial bias. On
balance, the impact of discrimination against Blacks in
consequential situations outweighs the effects of
reverse discrimination that occurs in more
tokenistic ways.

Approaches for dealing with the traditional form of
racism are generally not effective for combatting the
consequences of aversive racism. Aiming to provide
colorblind equal opportunity, in particular, may not be
successful. Aversive racists are not colorblind. A
growing body of research demonstrates that Whites
immediately categorize Blacks on the basis of their race,
and negative stereotypes and attitudes are automatically
activated. As a consequence bias can continue to occur at
the personal level or in terms of policies that subtly
disadvantage Blacks or fail to provide Blacks the support
that Whites receive.

There are three key elements of affirmative action
programs that made them more effective than equal
opportunity policies for combatting or mitigating the
negative effects of aversive racism. First, affirmative
action programs are proactive, including policies and
procedures for ensuring a diverse applicant pool.
Affirmative action does not mean quotas for hiring
and promotion, which are in fact illegal. Nor does it
necessarily mean preferential hiring. The goal is to
assemble, in a self-conscious and active way that can
counteract the effects of subtle bias (in the form if
ingroup favoritism or preferential support in the form of
mentoring), a diverse pool of fully qualified candidates
for hiring or promotion.

Second, the most common feature of affirmative action
programs is the emphasis on recordkeeping and
identification of accurate availability statistics so
that organizations can accurately gauge their progress
toward their diversity goals. The subtle process
underlying discrimination can be identified and isolated
under the structured conditions of the laboratory.
However, in organizational decisionmaking, in which the
controlled conditions of an experiment are rarely
possible, contemporary bias presents a substantial
challenge to the equitable treatment of members of
disadvantaged groups. Not only are the perpetu-ators of
bias often unaware of their motives, research has
demonstrated that the victims of discrimination may also
not recognize

that they have been personally discriminated against.
Systematic monitoring of disparities along consensually
accepted dimensions can reveal cumulative effects of
contemporary forms of bias that are more evident than the
impact that can be determined in any particular case.

Third, affirmative action policies are outcome-based;
issues of intentionality are not central. Demonstrating
intentionality, which is typically a major issue of
concern for equal employment opportunity programs, is
problematic because of contemporary forms of bias. These
biases commonly occur unintentionally.

In summary, over the past 25 years social
psychologists have identified and documented the subtle
nature of contemporary forms of bias. In contrast to the
direct and easily discernible traditional forms,
contemporary biases are expressed, often unintentionally,
in indirect and ration-alizable ways. Because of the
subtle nature of contemporary bias, passive equal
opportunity employment policies may not ensure the fair
and unbiased treatment of traditionally disadvantaged
groups. Policies designed to protect disadvantaged
individuals and groups from one type of discrimination
based on overt anti-outgroup actions may be ineffective
for addressing biased treatment based on ingroup
favoritism that may characterize aversive racism. In
contrast, affirmative action, with its focus on
documenting and responding to disparities at the
aggregate level and its emphasis on outcomes rather than
intention, addresses some of the particularly problematic
aspects of subtle biases that permit disparities to
persist despite people's good intentions.

Finally, it is important to note that even though
biases may be unconscious, unintentional and subtle, that
does not mean that bias is inevitable or immutable.
Significant changes can occur in individuals and in
society. Expressed racial attitudes have changed
dramatically since the civil rights legislation 30 years
ago. The personal, social and economic well-being of
Blacks, women and other traditionally disadvantaged
groups have improved since the advent of affirmative
action. We should not delude ourselves, however, that
equality has been achieved, that equity is now guaranteed
or that we are a society beyond bias. Racism is not a
problem that will go away if we ignore it; we have more
than 200 years of history to prove it. Racism still needs
to be combatted actively and self-consciously. Good
intentions alone are not sufficient to guarantee
equality. Affirmative action is far from perfect and how
it is implemented needs to be reexamined critically and
carefully, but it is still needed.